The Passion of the Christ (Mel Gibson movie)

Carson, I have to disagree about it being evangelistic. Granted, much evangalism may happen due to the film, but it does not share the whole gospel story.

It is my prayer though that this film will help bridge the gap between Catholics and non-Catholics. I was shocked at how big the movie is among fundamental evangical non-Catholic Christians, since it has very apparent Catholic undertones to the movie. It is a very Catholic movie as I don't have to tell you, but, I think that's a good thing.

 

Adam,

The "Gospel" is that God has defeated sin and death through the eschatological event of the Messiah's victorious reign, and if you mean by "evangelistic" that the film includes the Gospel, it does. It shows the defeat of sin and death through the vicarious love of God manifested in the Passion and Resurrection; it is a visible and audible manifestation of the four Gospels. If you mean by "evangelistic" that it will evangelize, that is certain; it is the reason that Gibson, a sedevacantist, put up $25 million of his own cash to produce this film.

 

I concede my position

 

My sister would certainly support that view!

 

I have not seen any evidence of this. How certain are you of this?

 

I have not seen any evidence of this. How certain are you of this?

My employer had a private screening of The Passion with Mel, and they discussed religion.

 

What does "schismatic" mean? Does this refer to Gibson being a Tradtionalist Catholic? Just curious...

 

Schismatic means that you are separated from the visible unity of the Church, and Mel - while professing the Catholic faith - has separated himself from the Church by denying that Pope John Paul II is the legitimate successor of St. Peter.

 

Hi there,
I have (obviously) not seen the film, but was disturbed by articles such as the following: What do others think?

The Christian Science Monitor
Guest columnist
Gibson's 'Passion' is for action, not history
By Paula Fredriksen

Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" came into my life last April. Gene Fisher,
the ecumenical officer for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, convened a group
of scholars to assess Gibson's script — its historical fidelity, use of New Testament
materials and consonance with Catholic instruction.
Why did we on the panel care? This was, after all, just a movie. The answer, in part,
lay with Gibson's own publicity efforts. In numerous interviews, he'd presented his
movie as an act of God, insisted that it was the most historically accurate depiction of
Christ's passion ever filmed, and paraded his own Catholic piety as authentication of
his movie.
But Gibson had revealed some historical gaffes. One source for his story came not
from the first century Gospels, but from Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824), a
stigmatic nun whose visions enunciated an anti-Semitism typical of her time. (She
believed that Jews used the blood of Christian babies for rituals.) And, finally, Web
site stills of the movie were marked with Hollywood gore: "Realism" had less to do
with history than with celluloid violence.
All this concerned those of us who work to promote interfaith dialogue and good
relations between Christians and Jews. We volunteered time and expertise to give
Gibson a confidential report that reviewed the problems, historical as well as (from a
Catholic point of view) doctrinal, with his script. We framed our presentation by
naming one precise source of concern: the long, toxic Christian tradition that Jews
were — or are — particularly responsible for the death of Jesus, and how this has led
to anti-Jewish violence.
Icon Productions, the movie's distributor, leaked our report to the media, presented
our assessment as an "attack" on Christianity and has worked hard to keep the
controversy alive until the movie's release Feb. 25. Catholic concern has been
de-emphasized and Jewish concern emphasized to enhance the idea that the
controversy is a Christians-vs.-Jews argument. Gibson's critics, say "Passion"
apologists, attack his rights, and thus the rights of all citizens.
Let's be clear: This is an action flick. Gibson has taken skills honed in "Lethal
Weapon," "Conspiracy" and "Payback" to construct his take on the last 12 hours of
Jesus' life. If you've seen the final half-hour of "Braveheart" (a medieval action
movie), you've essentially seen "Passion."
Again, so what? It's just a movie. But this movie — unlike, say, "The Last Temptation
of Christ" or "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" — risks more than religious offensiveness,
and does more than simply entertain with violence. "Passion" stands in the echo
chamber of traditional Christian anti-Judaism. The tradition at its most benign has
excused, and at its most malicious has occasioned, anti-Jewish violence for as long as
Western culture has been Christian. Christians enraged at the supposed Jewish
treatment of Jesus have often acted out against Jewish neighbors in their midst, and
felt morally and theologically justified in doing so.
Will "Passion" have a negative effect on society? Might it promote anti-Jewish
violence? I think it well might. Long cultural habits die hard. Debate around the film
has already occasioned ugly anti-Semitic slurs. My university and I have received
ominous threats from a furious Christian "Passion" fan. If the publicity-oriented
"debate" stirs such feelings now, will the true debate stir fewer feelings once the
public can actually view the movie? I doubt it.
Gibson reshot some scenes after the pre-release attention. Will he actually follow
some of the scholars' suggestions and make his Bad Guys — the Jewish high priest,
most of his council and most of Jerusalem's Jews — less extreme? I don't know.
Will the anti-Semitism the movie has already stirred lead to violence? I think in the
U.S. it won't, despite the violence of our culture. Anti-Semitism just hasn't had the
defining role here, historically, that it has had elsewhere. The long tolerance of
anti-Jewish violence in Europe, and the current climate of violence against Jews — in
Istanbul, South America, Britain and France — inclines me to be much less sanguine
about the effects of "Passion" there.
In recent years in Europe, violence against Jews — if those Jews are Israelis — has
been explicitly excused by appeal to the tradition that "the Jews killed Christ."
Horrific suicide bombings during the current intifada inspired a church in Edinburgh,
over Easter 2001, to display a painting of the crucifixion with Roman centurions and
officers of the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) at the foot of the cross.
My point is that the toxic tradition — Jews killed Jesus; all Jews everywhere are
culpable; when something bad happens to them, it is no less than they deserve — is
very much alive. The film, if unaltered, is inflammatory and potentially dangerous.
My responsibility is to speak out — not against the film so much as against the
ignorance and the unselfconscious anti-Judaism that it so dramatically embodies.
Gibson has given us a priceless opportunity for public education. Out of the ivory
tower, past the Cineplex, into the churches and interfaith communities, this teachable
moment now serves as the silver lining that shines within the looming dark cloud of
Gibson's "Passion."
Paula Fredriksen, a Bible scholar, is a professor at Boston University. This article is
reprinted with permission from the Winter 2003/2004 issue of The Responsive
Community.
Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company

 

Yes, and that's quite unfortunate. It's times like those that I'm ashamed to be protestant.

 

"And, finally, Web
site stills of the movie were marked with Hollywood gore: "Realism" had less to do
with history than with celluloid violence. "


What happened in the last hours of Christ life is probably the most brutal and violent of all history. For both historical and scientific proof see the protestant book "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel.

 

Hi there, you are right, but that is not the end of the story.
Jesus suffered in love for us. The Crucifixion is not about the brutality of men so much as the love of God. If the movie dwells on the love of Jesus for all of us, including those, both Roman and Jewish, who participated in his death, and if audiences go out filled with a vision of that love, forgivness and mercy, then all is well. If, on the other hand, the movie indulges in brutality and violence, not as measures of God's love, but as good graphics with no message other than Jewish guilt, then the message it would give would be opposite to that of the Gospel. Stephen, who was closer to the crucifixion than any of us, learnt from it how to forgive those who killed him. The rotten reality is that many "passion plays" in the past have dwelt on violence, and evoked a violent response in their audiences. Jews were murdered by mobs who had just been to see passion plays! This is obscene! They had not learnt of God's love, but responded to graphic violence with their own. They had not heard the Good News in these plays!
This is the concern re this movie.
PS, wont it be nice when we have actually seen it and can have a discussion based on more than second-hand info!

 

I agree! We will have to see. I can't wait to look at the faces around me when the camera focuses on that empty tomb!